[Godless Dave]

Cool Hand, that's a very good analysis and I mostly agree that that's what Bush and cadre were thinking. In my opinion access to oil played a larger role in their thought process than you seem to think, but otherwise I think you are probably right.

Where I differ with the Bush team (and maybe with you, I don't know) is that any of that thinking is reasonable. To mass all terrorism together into one movement that can be fought and defeated is like trying to attack the concept of guerilla warfare or attrition warfare by attacking particular targets. Terrorism is a tactic. I think most of us share the opinion that it is a despicable tactic (I do), but it is not a unifying ideology like anti-Semitism, communism, or even fascism. To attack Hussein because he provided some support to groups who use the same tactic as Al Qaeda is just plain silly.

Besides the fact that there is no evidence that Saddam provided any support to terrorist groups who planned to attack the US, there is not much evidence that he provided substantial support to any other terrorist groups. He wrote some checks to families of Palestinian suicide bombers whose houses had been bulldozed by the Israelis, but that's about it. After Gulf War I he seems to have spent most of his money building palaces for himself and buying expensive luxury goods for his supporters. Anti-Israel terrorist groups get far more support from Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Egypt than they got from Iraq, with little to no interference from the governments of those countries.

And why should we fight Israel's wars for her?

After 9/11, I saw Al Qaeda as the only enemy against whom we needed to use military force in order to defend ourselves. Other enemies existed, but the threats they posed were neither large or immediate, and could best have been dealt with by other means in cooperation with other nations. And Al Qaeda seemed a big enough target. Even then it was a loose movement more than an organization that would require creative and unconventional means to defeat.

As to the UN being useless, I agree that many of Bush's team and many conservatives hold that belief. And frankly I find it very, very dangerous. The UN is by no means perfect, or even intended to be, but it still has utility in fulfilling its original purpose: encouraging nation-states to avoid war by facilitating negotiation between them and setting up a system for other nations to exert influence on nations that employ or seek to employ force.

Yes, that involves limiting the US's actions in the world. That's part of the idea: to keep the most powerful nations from using military or economic power to dominate the rest. I support this goal even when - hell, especially when - my nation is the most powerful in the world.

That brings up something I want to say about unilateralism. I can envision a situation where the US needed to do something on the world stage in order to defend itself, something which was opposed by most of the world community. But Iraq was not such a situation. Germany, France, Russia, and most of the rest of the world opposed our invasion of Iraq for a very good reason: we had not presented an adequate case for why we would be justified in invading Iraq and the world is justifiably - based on world history - afraid of any nation that undertakes military action for any reason other than self-defense, the defense of allies, or the prevent a humanitarian catastrophe - the very reasons stated in the UN charter as justifying war. Sure, those nations had selfish reasons for opposing the war as well. If their only reasons had been self interest it would have been a different story. But they had a good reason: they claimed there was no compelling evidence that Saddam had WMDs or ties to Al Qaeda, or that he was a threat to regional security. As we all now know, they were right.

Yes, Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant. But that does not mean that invading Iraq (even if Bush had had a viable reconstruction plan, which he clearly doesn't) would result in an improvement inside Iraq or in the world at large.